phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:55 pm You claimed something ("Free will gave Mary the option to not abort Jane") but you provide no reasoning to support the claim.
That's not reasoning. That's not philosophy. That's making up a story.
No, if in fact we do have free will "somehow" -- re God or nature itself -- then Mary would have the option to either abort or not to abort. What reason could there possibly be that she doesn't if in fact "somehow" she does?
Instead, because neither you nor I are privy
to the explanation for how and why mindless non-living matter did evolve into mindful living matter on Earth, we are both ensnared in the surreal nature of these exchanges. Surreal in that neither philosophers nor scientists have been able to determine if in fact we do have free will.
We could dream about exchanging assessments of free will...then wake up and realize that "reality" was created entirely by our brains chemically and neurologically. But what about the waking world reality? How do we establish unequivocally that this either is or is not autonomous?
Right, and what is the science behind demonstrating where and when and why determinism ends and fatalism begins in Mary's brain?
phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:55 pm Fatalism begins in Mary's mind when she starts to think that she knows what her fate is and that she can't change it.
We already know the characteristics of determinism and fatalism through observation and reasoning. Science has nothing to do with it.
Right. And in asserting this, that makes it true. When, in fact, you have no capacity even to pin down this distinction in your own brain. Can Mary start to think [about anything] of her own free will or is she compelled to think about only that which she was never able not to think of?
Do we opt to note the distinction between determinism and fatalism...fatalistically or deterministically?
And -- click -- how preposterous is it to insist that science has nothing to do with exploring this distinction itself!!
I never said I could explain my claims. Let alone demonstrate them. You must have me confused with someone else.
phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:55 pm If you can't explain why your ideas about Mary's abortion are better than other ideas, then what are you doing here?
I'm grappling to make sense of a world in which we seem to have no definitive manner in which
to know for certain if our explanations are in fact of our own volition or not.
And, more specifically on this thread, how those who call themselves compatibilists are able to reconcile Mary unable to not abort Jane with her still being morally responsible for doing so. How do
they make a distinction between determinism and fatalism?
I'm just interested in hearing arguments that reconcile determinism and moral responsibility.
phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:55 pm You got arguments. And you don't seem to be interested in any of them.
Link me to them. On this thread. And, sure, some here may provide arguments. But -- click -- that doesn't mean they will make sense to me.
Besides, given "the gap" between what I think here and now about Mary's abortion and all that there is to be known about it going back to all that there is to be known about the existence of existence itself, what are the odds that my analysis actually could be correct?
I merely suggest that's applicable to everyone else here too.
phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:55 pm If you have some reasoning to back up your statements and it passes scrutiny, then your odds of being correct increase.
But you don't have anything.
Huh?
First there's the astounding vastness [and mystery] of the universe itself:
https://youtu.be/m2YJ7aR25P0
Then there's all the speculation about a "multiverse"...an infinite number of universes some suggest. Then there's the simply staggering mystery of why something exists at all. And why this something?
And you're asking me to provide reasons for what I think about Mary's abortion...reasons that can pass scrutiny? Run by whom?